Summary of responses and government response

Question 1

Summary of responses

Accepted Answer

Number of responses

In total, 129 responses to the consultation were received. Not all questions had 129 responses. The consultation allowed respondents to say a question was not relevant to them or to not enter any response at all. Responses were received from animal keepers and businesses, local government officials, veterinarians, and membership and trade organisations such as the NFU (National Farmers Union), BVA (British Veterinary Association) and the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).

Headline figures

Not all respondents provided a response to each question, percentages are calculated on those who did provide a response.

The percentage and number of respondents given in the table below supported the use of penalty notices to deal with all or some current and potential offences.

The use of penalty notices for	Percentage of respondents who support	Number of responses who support
Promotion of animal welfare related offences	87%	110 of 126
Animal licensing related offences	89%	104 of 117
Pet identification related offences	88%	100 of 114
Equine identification related offences	89%	91 of 102
Livestock identification related offences	91%	91 of 100
Animal health related offences	86%	95 of 110
Live animal, Products of Animal Origin (POAO) and Animal by Product (ABP) related offences	87%	93 of 106

Question 2

Summary of responses by question

Accepted Answer

Questions 1 to 3 were about the respondent.

Scope of the penalty notice regime

There were 126 responses to this question, 87% (110) of respondents supported the use of penalty notices for all or some promotion of animal welfare related offences. This consisted of 64% of respondents agreeing that penalty notices would be a suitable tool for all offences related to the promotion of animal welfare, and a further 23% stating that they felt that penalty notices would be suitable for only some of these offences. 8% of respondents disagreed that penalty notices would be suitable for any promotion of animal welfare related offences, with 5% being unsure.

Numerous comments from different councils noted the potential for penalty notices to be a useful tool to promote animal welfare, dissuade illegal activity, ease pressure on an overburdened court/legal system, and provide quicker resolution to any offences committed than court cases.

Responses received in support of the use of penalty notices for only some offences relating to the promotion of animal welfare commented that penalty notices would be useful for tackling first time offences and minor offences as well as the potential to redirect behaviour towards compliance in offenders. Other comments raised concerns regarding the training of enforcement officers, the need for veterinary proof of harm or cruelty, and particular issues regarding the transport of animals that could hamper the use of penalty notices. There were also concerns raised over the lack of prosecutions for animal cruelty related offences, which may be bridged via the use of penalty notices.

Of those who responded that penalty notices would be an unsuitable tool for use in current and future promotion of animal welfare cases, some respondents commented that receiving penalty notices were an inappropriate outcome for these types of offences and that judicial action should always be sought in all cases where an offence in this area has been committed. Concerns were raised over giving excess additional power to statutory bodies; potential lack of oversight or guidance regarding the issuing of penalty notices; and the risk of a gap in intelligence that could highlight potential repeat offenders if such offenders are able to discharge liability for “low level” offences via a penalty notice.

There were further comments regarding not enough enforcement taking place at government level, and an overreliance on charities to undertake this work.

There were 117 responses to this question. 62% (73) of respondents supported the use of penalty notices as a suitable enforcement option for all animal licensing offences with 27% (31) of respondents supporting the use of penalty notices for some animal welfare licensing offences only. Only 7% (9) of respondents disagreed that penalty notices would be a suitable enforcement option with 3% (4) of respondents unsure.

Comments in favour of penalty notices noted that penalty notices provide a proportionate deterrent for these kinds of offences and are a useful alternative to prosecution or license withdrawal.

Some respondents who commented that penalty notices should apply to some animal welfare licensing offences stated that they would be too severe a punishment for offences such as not displaying a licence number. Some respondents felt penalty notices would not be a sufficient punishment for offences where there was a serious impact on animal welfare or where businesses were operating without a licence. Penalty notices were considered most suitable for administrative offences and potentially for repeat offenders.

Comments from those not in favour of using penalty notices for animal licensing related offences highlighted concerns on how penalty notices will be used alongside other enforcement options such as whether being issued with a penalty notice would affect a business seeking to receive or renew their animal activity related licence.

There were 114 responses to this question. 72% (82) of respondents supported penalty notices as a suitable enforcement option for all pet identification offences with 16% (18) of respondents agreeing penalty notices would only be suitable for some pet identification offences. Only 11% of respondents (12) disagreed that penalty notices would be a suitable enforcement option for any pet identification offences with 1% of respondents (2) unsure.

Respondents in favour of penalty notices as an available enforcement option noted that they would be a useful alternative to prosecution and provide a more effective level of enforcement for these types of offences.

A few comments raised concerns as to which offences might be appropriate for a penalty notice. Respondents commented that penalty notices would not be appropriate where there was a genuine error in microchipping records or if errors could be correctly quickly and easily.

Responses who disagreed with penalty notices being a suitable enforcement option commented that penalty notices would not be suitable if the welfare of the animal had been compromised because of an identification offence. Also, a penalty notice should be set at a level that would be a sufficient deterrent and not deemed to be a cheap option to discharge an offender’s liability.

There were concerns raised regarding how penalty notices would operate in practical terms. For example, would owners or keepers with multiple animals without mandatory identification receive separate penalty notices for each animal; and would any follow up action be undertaken after a penalty notice had been issued.

While not related to penalty notices directly, there were some general comments received about pet microchipping in relation to semi feral or feral cats and that microchipping offences should not be extended to this group. Some responses perceived poor performance of microchipping databases as a barrier to enforcement of pet identification laws.

102 responses were received for this question with 82% (84) of respondents supporting the introduction of penalty notices in this area with a further 7% (7) of respondents in support of penalty notices for some equine identification offences.

A few comments raised that penalty notices could help improve enforcement in this area and offer a faster route for dealing with equine identification issues. Other comments suggested that penalty notices could provide a more effective deterrent than the current civil sanctions regime.

8% (8) of respondents did not support the use of penalty notices for current and potential equine identification offences. Comments received raised that penalty notices would not be a strong enough deterrent and cited a current lack of enforcement in this area. 3% (3) of respondents answered that they were unsure.

There were 100 responses received for this question. 79% of respondents (79) supported penalty notices as a suitable enforcement option for all livestock identification offences with 12% of respondents (12) agreeing that penalty notices would only be suitable for some identification offences. Only 9% (9) thought penalty notices would not be a suitable enforcement option for any livestock identification offences.

Comments in favour of penalty notices proposed that this enforcement tool would be a useful and proportionate deterrent to ensure early compliance of rules. Responses also highlighted that given the end of cross compliance, having penalty notices as a financial deterrent would be helpful along with being applicable to everyone with livestock instead of being limited to those in farming schemes.

Comments also raised the issue that penalty notices would be better suited as an option after advice and guidance has been provided, however a few responses stated that prosecution should remain the primary enforcement where there is evidence of serious animal welfare offences and possibly where there is a threat to public health.

Responses not in favour of having penalty notices available for livestock identification offences indicated that given the importance of biosecurity, having penalty notices may be an insufficient deterrent for these kinds of offences. Also, if there was a genuine error for example a lost tag, respondents felts that issuing a penalty notice might be a disproportionate enforcement action.

There were 110 responses received for this question. 71% (78) of respondents supported penalty notices as a suitable enforcement option to deal with current and potential animal health related offences with 15% (17) of respondents agreeing that penalty notices would only be suitable for some animal health related offences.

Comments highlighted that penalty notices were seen as a beneficial enforcement tool for bovine tuberculosis (bTB) breaches, minor offences or low-level offences, and strict liability offences. Some respondents whilst supportive of penalty notices noted concerns regarding using penalty notices for repeat offences, and offences that potentially cause harm to an animal, or to public health. Offences which respondents considered to be most appropriate for a penalty notice were administrative offences or first-time offences, not offences where an animal’s welfare had been compromised.

11% of respondents (12) thought that penalty notices would not be a suitable enforcement option for any animal health related offences. Respondents not in favour of penalty notices for animal health related offences highlighted that these kinds of offences negatively impact public health and therefore penalty notices are an ineffective deterrent and would not be suitable as an enforcement option. 3% (3) of respondents answered that they were unsure.

106 responses were received for this question. 77% (82) of respondents supported the introduction of penalty notices in this area with a further 10% (11) of respondents in support of penalty notices for some offences.

Comments received in favour of penalty notice being available for all offences highlighted penalty notices as a beneficial enforcement tool allowing for early and immediate intervention when offences have been identified. Those who responded that penalty notices should be available for some offences commented that penalty notices would be suitable for lower level or minor offences but not where there is a significant risk to public health and animal health and welfare. Other comments whilst supportive, noted concerns such as the levels of fines being sufficient to act as a deterrent and ability to issue a penalty where the offender is from outside the UK.

9% (10) of respondents did not support the use of penalty notices for offences relating to the import of live animals, POAO and ABP. Some cited the need for stronger enforcement measures in these areas, such as prosecution. 3% (3) of respondents answered that they were unsure.

Receiving a penalty notice

Q11. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Where an individual has already been issued advice and guidance, an improvement notice or similar and they have failed to comply, it would be reasonable to escalate enforcement action of which, a penalty notice could be a suitable next step.

126 responses were received for this question. 76% (98) of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that a penalty notice would be a suitable escalation action. Many respondents in favour commented that a penalty notice would be an appropriate escalation of enforcement action where earlier interventions had not worked. Some in support of escalation to a penalty notice noted that the severity of the offence and previous history should also be considered. Others, whilst in support, suggested penalty notices would not be appropriate where there was a significant risk to public health and animal health and welfare.

16% (20) of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed that a penalty notice would be a reasonable escalation. Most comments raised the need for tougher sanctions particularly when previous advice and guidance, improvement notices or other interventions had not been complied with. A small number of comments highlighted a lack of trust and knowledge in enforcement authorities.

Whilst 76% of respondents to this question agreed or strongly agreed that penalty notices could be used as part of an enforcement journey, there were contrasting comments on how early in that journey penalty notices should be issued. Notably, there were differing views between some welfare charities, where it was suggested that penalty notices would be a useful first step and should be combined with advice and guidance, and some farming groups stating, a penalty notice would be suitable as part of an escalation process only where advice and guidance had been issued and not followed.

Q12. To what extent do you agree or disagree that an individual should be allowed to receive a maximum number of penalty notices for committing the same or similar offence within a three-year period (similar to speeding) before an alternate enforcement action is taken?

There were 122 responses received for this question. 59% (72) of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that an individual should be allowed to receive a maximum number of penalty notices for committing the same or similar offence within a three-year period before alternate enforcement action is taken. 33% (40) of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed. 8% (10) of respondents answered that they were unsure.

88 responses were received on the question regarding how many penalty notices an individual should be allowed to receive within a 3-year period. Responses to this question produced an overall range from none to unlimited with the highest number of responses stating an amount within 1 to 3. There was no clear consensus on a specific number.

108 respondents provided comments on the maximum number. The main concern raised was regarding formally setting a maximum number of penalty notices allowed with a 3-year period; with respondents noting this should depend upon the nature and severity of the offences committed.

Penalty notice amount

Q13 – Guidance could be given on additional matters that could be taken into account when deciding an amount to be specified in the penalty notice. We have identified examples which could be considered. Please rate each of the below examples of additional matters between 1 to 5 (with 5 being the most important) on whether they should be taken into account when deciding a penalty notice amount for an individual who has committed an offence, and a penalty notice has been deemed an appropriate enforcement action.

Financial gain from the offence: 60% of respondents rated this additional matter as 5 (most important) with a weighted average of 4 across all respondents.

Ability to pay: 17% of respondents rated this additional matter as 5 (most important) with a weighted average of 2.7 across all respondents. This was the lowest rated additional matter in this section.

Number of previous penalty notice issued: 65% of respondents rate this additional matter a 5 (most important) with a weighted average of 4.2 across all respondents.

Duration of time since a penalty notice was issued: 41% of respondents rated this additional matter with a 5 (most important) with a weighted average of 3.7 across all respondents.

If the offence is the same or similar for which a previous penalty notice was issued: 62% of respondents rated this additional matter a 5 (most important) with a weighted average of 4.1 across all respondents.

If other offences have been committed at the same time: 54% of respondents rated this additional matter with a 5 (most important) with a weighted average of 4.1 across all respondents.

Number of animals involved: 52% of respondents rated this additional matter with a 5 (most important) with a weighted average of 3.8 across all respondents.

In general, respondents stated that these factors are important to consider when setting the amount for the penalty notice.

Other additional matters; please specify

There were 48 responses to this question. Other additional matters suggested by respondents included: the nature of the offence; impact on the environment, food supply and biosecurity; the physical and mental wellbeing of the offender; whether the offender is a commercial entity; previous convictions; and remorse shown by the offender.

Other issues raised in consultation responses

Farming groups raised concerns regarding the inability to appeal a penalty notice and the ability for an individual to provide mitigating evidence before a penalty notice is issued. Another concern raised by human right charities was regarding situations where an individual was issued with a penalty notice but had been coerced into committing an offence.

Question 3

Government response

Accepted Answer

Introduction of penalty notices

The government published an Action Plan for Animal Welfare in May 2021. The plan announced the introduction of penalty notices as an enforcement option supporting a more flexible and proportionate enforcement regime across all kept animals. On 28 April 2022, the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act “the act” received Royal Assent, providing the powers to introduce penalty notices in England for animal health and welfare offences.

The introduction of penalty notices will represent a shift in how we deal with animal health and welfare offences in England. Taking on board, the Macrory principles of regulatory enforcement, enforcers should encourage and ensure compliance with legal standards, working with businesses and individuals to achieve this at an early stage. Advice and guidance are the primary enforcement tools for early redirection. However, in some situations a penalty notice could be used to highlight the importance of complying with rules and support rectifying the breach in the law when advice and guidance has proved to be an insufficient deterrent. Penalty notices could be the proportionate alternative option to criminal prosecutions in these targeted cases. Penalty notices will sit alongside the existing portfolio of enforcement measures and be an additional option for enforcers to use when encouraging people to follow the law.

Penalty notices will help to fill an enforcement gap between advice and guidance and prosecution. It is important to maintain a proportionate and robust enforcement system to build domestic and international confidence in the health and welfare of our kept animals and protection of public health.

More than 85% of respondents to the consultation supported the view that penalty notices could be a proportionate tool to ensure compliance with animal health and welfare regulations and support the use of penalty notices to enforce regulations across different areas of animal health and welfare legislation.

Where penalty notices will be used

There is strong support for penalty notices to be introduced across animal health and welfare legislation. We intend to ‘switch on’ a range of offences for consideration of penalty notices in areas including:

animal welfare
animal licensing
welfare at transport
welfare at time of killing
wild animals in circuses
animal health including Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) and Avian Influenza (AI)
animal by-products (ABP)
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE)
animal identification including sheep and pigs
imports of live animals and products of animal origin (POAO)

There are other offences that we intend in the future to ‘switch on’ for penalty notices but due to ongoing policy development, these would not be suitable to include at this time. These include cat, dog, and equine identification. While this consultation demonstrates support for penalty notices in these areas we will engage further with relevant stakeholders.

We note concerns raised by some respondents regarding the use of penalty notices for animal welfare offences covered by section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. These offences promote the welfare of animals including the right to food, water, and a suitable environment. Where prosecutions have taken place for these types of offences and offenders have been found guilty, banning orders have typically been issued by the courts. Responses to the consultation provided examples where penalty notices could support early redirection for promotion of animal welfare offences. Penalty notices would be an additional tool that an enforcer could consider and would not prevent an enforcer going direct to prosecution or using another enforcement measure such as improvement notices^{[footnote 1]}.

As a result, we will make penalty notices available as an enforcement option for named enforcers to use where appropriate for promotion of animal welfare offences.

Enforcement journey

It is important that penalty notices are not seen as the first step in every enforcement journey. They should be used when they are the most appropriate enforcement action depending on the severity and circumstances of the offence. Penalty notices should not be used when it will be more appropriate for advice and guidance or prosecution to be taken as the first step in an enforcement journey.

Penalty notices will add to and complement the current suite of enforcement and regulatory options, such as:

advice and guidance
warning letters or statutory notices
movement restrictions
cautions and prosecution

This is to support early redirection through behaviour change, to promote compliance with animal health and welfare rules. Penalty notices are not designed to act as a strong punishment for serious offences or for minor breaches where advice and guidance in the first instance would be sufficient in rectifying the issue. Penalty notices allow an enforcer to offer an individual who has committed an offence the option to discharge their liability for prosecution by payment of a financial amount noted in the penalty notice. Enforcers will be required to do so having regard to statutory guidance for issuing penalty notices.

Before a penalty notice is issued, detailed evidence gathering exercise will need to be carried out by the enforcer as part of the investigation to ensure that the enforcer is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. As part of this evidence gathering exercise, the individual concerned will be able to provide mitigating evidence which the enforcer must consider when deciding what action to take, including whether a penalty notice is issued. Penalty notices may, in the right circumstances provide the benefit of a quicker pathway to resolution for individuals.

Concerns were raised by some respondents in respect of penalty notices issued in error and how they could be appealed. Enforcers have the power to withdraw penalty notices which have been issued in error. A person who is issued with a penalty notice can choose not to discharge their liability by not paying the penalty notice amount. Failure to pay the penalty notice is not an offence in itself.

Where an individual does not pay a penalty notice, it will be for the enforcement authority to decide if a prosecution for the original offence is in the public interest and, if appropriate, recommend to the prosecutor that a prosecution should be commenced. The decision to prosecute remains with the prosecutor who has deemed there is sufficient evidence to justify proceedings. If the case is prosecuted in court, the defendant will be able to exercise their right to appeal on conviction.

Statutory guidance

Several responses to the consultation highlighted the importance of the competence and training for enforcement authorities. We recognise the competence of enforcement authorities is paramount in ensuring the use of penalty notices is effective and proportionate.

Statutory guidance will be laid in parliament and published alongside the regulation ‘switching on’ relevant offences. Enforcement authorities will need to have regard to this document and its purpose will be to assist enforcement authorities in implementing penalty notices and ensuring consistency. The statutory guidance will support enforcement authorities in deciding when a penalty notice might be issued, how to decide the penalty notice amount and additional factors to consider.

We propose to support enforcers in familiarisation of the guidance to ensure that penalty notice will be used appropriately and consistently.

Additional factors

Penalty notices are designed to be a proportionate enforcement tool, enforcement authorities will need to take into consideration relevant mitigating and aggravating factors when deciding a penalty notice amount.

Enforcement authorities will first determine the level of harm and culpability of the offence before taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors to calculate the penalty notice amount.

Responses to the consultation showed support for the additional aggravating and mitigating factors proposed and in addition factors such as impacts on the environment, mental wellbeing of the animal and whether the offender was coerced into committing the offence were proposed. We have incorporated all these factors into our planned statutory guidance.

Number of penalty notices allowed within a time period

There was not a consensus from respondents on the maximum number of penalty notices an individual should be able to receive within a 3-year period. Enforcers will need to consider whether prosecution or some other action is more appropriate with respect to an individual or business who has committed multiple offences and is continuing to fail to comply with the law.

Administration and reporting

There were some comments received during the consultation regarding the funds received from paid penalty notices. The act states that the receipts from penalty notices for animal health and welfare offences will be deposited into the Consolidated Fund. The cost of investigating the offence relevant to the penalty notice issued and the cost incurred by the enforcement authority to issue the penalty notice can be deducted from the receipt of a paid penalty notice by enforcement authorities before transferring the remaining funds received into the Consolidated Fund.

Several respondents noted concerns regarding the oversight of ensuring penalty notices will be utilised proportionately and consistently across England. To provide transparency on how penalty notices are being used, the act requires enforcement authorities to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State after the end of each fiscal year detailing the:

number of penalty notices issued
financial amounts of the penalties issued
reason each penalty notice was issued, meaning the offence committed

Animal Welfare Act 2006 - section 10 ↩

Summary of responses and government response